Yes it was irrevelent because you went on and on and on about what percentage of people can afford to pay when I merely said SOME cant pay, so your arguement about the number of people who cant afford is COMPLETELY IRREVELENT. Now if I had said ALL people who dont pay cant afford to, your arguement would be revelent.

I remember what you said just fine. you said that non paying members should receive "THE BEST SERVICE POSSIBLE." (caps added by me for emphasis).

NOTE YOUR use of the word Best there. NOw you are changing it to "they should get GOOD service" (again, caps added by me). Its obvious you cant or choose not to read, nowremember I said On my other point you obviously misinterpreted what I meant, and maybe I didnt elaborate enough. then I went on to say that they should get good service, not better. Nowhere did I say they dont get good service now, I said many times they DO get good service and I think it should remain and I challenged you before when YOU said it shouldnt remain as such, so no idea where you dug THAT one up from, so I'll leave it alone.

Again as for the name calling, yes it was on an old issue you called us all morons in your tantrum. I was pointing it out since you pointed out how it is bad debating tactics, thought it was a little ironic given you resort to just that.